The advantages of the supplemental restraint system, in occupant vehicles, in combination with the use of seat belts have been well appreciated. Air bags are among the most successful safety devices in motor vehicles today. The use of air bags in modern vehicles is fast becoming an absolute standard.
Recently, however, a problem has arisen which presents both real and perceived hazards in the use of air bags. Air bags are primarily designed for the benefit of adult occupants. When children or infants are placed in the front occupant seat, deployment of an air bag could cause, and has caused, serious injury. Automobile manufacturers, realizing this hazard, have recommended that children and infants only ride in the rear occupant seats of the automobile.
According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Board, “smart” technology air bags should be in place by automakers starting with the 1999 motor vehicles. In short, “smart technology” air bags adjust air bag deployment to accommodate the specific weight considerations of the occupant who would be affected by its deployment. The end result is that small occupants are not injured by the deployed air bag.
While air bags have been credited with saving thousands of lives, the tremendous force of the air bag deployment has proven that injuries often result from these expensive measures to promote safety. Air bags have been blamed for deaths of many children and adults in low-speed accidents that they otherwise would have survived.
Placing infants and small individuals in the front occupant seat of automobiles has led to some serious, but avoidable, tragedy. Unfortunately these accidents have had a secondary effect in that the public is beginning to perceive air bags as inherently dangerous and, therefore should be selectively disabled, if installed at all. In light of the statistics, air bags have provided a net life saving, thus the solution to the above problem should be less drastic than termination of same, in other to prevent them from injuring younger occupants.
Inevitably, children will be placed in the front occupant seat of automobiles, whether this is due to ignorance of the hazards, or simply due to the necessity of fitting a number of occupants in a particular vehicle. Therefore, the solution lies in adapting the supplemental restraint system to adjust the deployment force to compensate for the presence of smaller occupants. It should be noted that, while less likely, smaller adults also may be injured by the deployment of an air bag. The most obvious solution to the problem, and one, which the public seems to be demanding if air bags are to be used at all, is that the operator of the vehicle has the opinion of disabling the air bag. This solution has several problems. First, inevitably, the operator may forget to disable it when it should be. Second, the operator may forget to enable the system when desired for adult occupants. Finally, entirely disabling the system deprives children and smaller occupants of the benefits of air bags.
In order to avoid some of the above problems, related prior art devices have incorporated measurement systems into the seats of some vehicles to gather information about the occupant and to operate the air bag in accordance with that information. These systems generally represent a simple “on” or “off” selection. First, if an occupant is not located in the seat, or does not trigger certain secondary detectors, the restraint system is disabled. If the detector properly senses the occupant in the vehicle, the air bag is simply “enabled”. These systems have no way of identifying a changing occupant and correcting the occupant's changing data.
This is exemplified by U.S. Pat. No. 3,861,710, to Okubo, issued Jan. 21, 1975, which shows an incremental airbag deployment through incremental signal communication, but does not show how occupants are classified to enable variable deployment of the airbag. U.S. Pat. No. 4,806,713, issued Feb. 21, 1989, to Krug et al., which shows a seat contact switch for generating a “seat occupied” signal when an individual is sensed atop a seat. The Krug et al. Device does not have the ability to measure the mass of the seated individual.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,071,160, issued Dec. 10, 1991, to White et al., provides the next iteration of this type of system. A weight sensor in the seat, in combination with movement detectors, determines if it is necessary to deploy an air bag. If an air bag is deployed, the weight sensor determines what level of protection is needed and a choice is made between deploying one or two canisters of propellant. First, the weight sensor is located in the seat itself, which inherently leads to inaccurate readings. Second, the level of response has only a handful of reaction levels, thus the occupant not corresponding to one of these levels may be injured due to improper correlation of deployment force used to inflate the air bag.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,161,820, issued Nov. 10, 1992, to Vollmer, describes a control unit for the intelligent triggering of the propellant charge for the air bag when a triggering event is detected. Vollmer's device provides a multiplicity of sensors located around the occupant seat so as to sense the presence or absence of a sitting, standing, or kneeling occupant. The Vollmer device is incapable of sensing varying masses of occupants and deploying the air bag with force corresponding to the specific occupant weight. Rather, the Vollmer seat and floor sensors ascertain whether a lightweight object, such as a suitcase, is present or a relatively heavier human being. None of the above inventions and patents, taken either singly or in combination, teaches or suggests the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,232,243, to Blackburn, et al, issued Aug. 3, 1993, uses a film with electrical characteristics with changeable state. Blackburn, et al apparatus teaches a system that sends signals indicative of occupant's presence, but would not classify the occupants to enable a deployment force that would not cause further injury to the occupant.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,330,226, to Gentry, et al., issued Jul. 19, 1994, teaches an apparatus for controlling actuation of occupant restraint system and includes displacement sensors on the dashboard and an infrared sensor on the headliner for sensing the location of the occupant. The invention of Gentry, et al. has no way of classifying changing occupants to enable variable force airbag deployment to protect occupants without causing any further injury to the occupants.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,413,378, to Steffens, Jr., et al, issued May 9, 1995, uses position sensors and weight sensors to sense occupants, but the deployment of the airbag is controlled by a controller selecting a discrete control zone to regulate a vent valve. Steffens, Jr., et al, fails to implement a system that is capable of sensing occupants actual weight measurement and set airbag deployment based on the data. Besides, the system of Steffens, Jr., at al, has no way of classifying changing occupants.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,707,078, to Swanberg, et al., issued Jan. 13, 1998, teaches airbag with adjustable cushion inflation, which includes a valve member in a module to change the size of the inflation outlet through which inflation fluid flows into the airbag cushion, but is not controlled by the occupant's weight. Thus, the invention of Swanberg, et al. fails to teach airbag assembly that is configured with a classification system to produce a device that would enable airbag deployment at a force that would not cause further injury to the occupant.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,259,167, to Norton, issued Jul. 10, 2001, still was filed only after the parent application of the current invention was made public, though failed in its entirety to show how occupants data could be monitored and corrected.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,407,347, to Blakesley, issued Jul. 18, 2002, though attempted to use strain gages after the parent application of the current invention was filed, still fails to distinguish a proper means by which occupants data could be monitored.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,677,538, to Cook, Jr. et al, though uses strain gages for a vehicle weight classification system, the approach of Cook, Jr., et al. is limited to using analog signal processing technique without revealing a proper means by which occupants weight could be monitored and the data properly control to keep the occupants from sustaining body injury during an accident. Besides, Cook, Jr., et. al., issued Jan. 13, 2004, This Application was filed only after the parent application of the current invention was made public, but still fails to show how occupants data could be corrected.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,609,054, to Michael, issued Aug. 19, 2003, teaches a classification system that classifies vehicle occupants based on data from an array of sensors and modules are used to for making airbag deployment force decision, airbag deployment direction, or whether not to deploy the airbag. The decisions by Michael teachings for enabling airbag deployment are insufficient in scope to properly deploy the airbag without causing any more injury to the occupants
U.S. Pat. No. 6,695,344, to Constantin, issued Feb. 24, 2004, teaches an airbag module with a predefined outlet opening for the airbag. The module includes a reinforcement ring for the airbag. Constantin's teachings fail to show how the outlet opening is influenced by the occupants weight to enable a proportionate deployment force for the airbag.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,011,338, to Midorikawa, et al., issued Mar. 14, 2006, teaches a seatbelt device which prevents an occupant from hitting his face against an airbag during deployment by taking up seatbelt slack before a collision. However, tensioning the occupant prior to collision without a predetermined tensile force that is proportionate to the oocupant's weight will only cause further injury to the occupant at the time/before the occupant is met with the airbag.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,047,825, to Curtis, et al., issued May 23, 2006, teaches weight sensor assembly for measuring weight on a vehicle seat. The sensor assembly is mounted between the seat bottom frame and a seat mounting member. Though Coutis, et al., fails to use EPROM for monitoring and classifying changing occupants, their teachings seems to be a reflection of publication by World Intellectual Property Organization, Application Number WO 99/48729 and Patent Corporation Treaty, Application Number US99/06666 originally invented by applicant of the present invention.